Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Ooh err missus, it has been quite a wee while since I have awarded my prestigious, and internationally renowned, Prats of The Week Award.

Therefore, without further ado, I am happy to award it to Swindon Borough Council.

For why?

Well now let me tell you a story.

Just off Newall Street in Swindon there is a very narrow alleyway, that is far too narrow for cars to pass through.

Some weeks ago, for reasons that were never clearly explained, Swindon Borough Council (or rather one of its contractors) painted double yellow lines on both sides of the alleyway (leaving a gap of 13 inches between the lines).

Suffice to say, no one was impressed and the council at the time said that the lines were a "temporary measure" and would in time burnt off.

Anyhoo, it now transpires that instead of burning them off the council has had them painted black.

Why not just save time and money and leave them there?

Ahah Nanny's chums from the council have an answer.

As per the BBC, a council spokesman said that they had been removed as the
council wanted drivers to know that double yellow lines "are there for
good reason and are capable of being enforced".

"These particular lines didn't get close to meeting either criteria.

The lines will be burnt off, but in the meantime they have been painted over as a temporary measure."

He added that the contractor had agreed to meet the cost and
the council would "not be paying for the painting of the lines or for
their removal".

What a remarkable waste of time and money (don't be deceived, somehow or other the cost of this will end up being charged to the local taxpayer).

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Sometimes Nanny's spinelessness knows no bounds, as she kowtows to her perceptions of what is and isn't "controversial".

Step forward CBS Outdoor (a purveyor of advertising space in the London Underground), which has decided to ban posters of Margaret Thatcher due to be shown at Westminster Tube station.

The posters, six portraits of the late prime minister (including a depiction of her as Queen Victoria), were due to run from this week. The portraits initially ran in an exhibition at Gallery
Different in central London, which opened last Wednesday, the day of
Baroness Thatcher's funeral. They included a pastiche of Peter Paul Ruben's The Assumption of the Virgin Mary with Baroness Thatcher's face replacing Mary's.

For why has CBS Outdoor banned them?

It claims that running them would break Transport for London (TfL)
guidelines.

"If an advert has messages or images that relate to public controversy or sensitivity it will not be run."

TfL, trying to avoid controversy itself, claims that the decision to ban the posters is down solely to CBS.

The decision to ban the posters on the grounds of them being "controversial" is of course utter tosh, art is meant to be challenging and controversial; not every piece of "art" should be suitable for the lids of chocolate boxes!

Thatcher herself would have been perfectly happy with the characterisations, political satirists of the day were far more "cruel" with their characterisations of her when she was Prime Minister.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Nanny really doesn't like to see people enjoy themselves, and if that enjoyment comes from something that is deemed to be patriotic she does all in her power to put a stop to it. My thanks to a loyal reader who pointed me to a story in the Yorkshire Post that highlights this rather well.

Scarborough Rugby Club has fallen foul of Nanny's chums from the local council, which decreed that the club cannot play the national anthem through loudspeakers at the opening of next week's match between England Colleges and the Irish Exiles.

For why?

The council claims that there are rules that ban the playing of amplified music.

Those of you with some rudimentary knowledge of the national anthem know that the version played before sporting fixtures etc lasts but 60 seconds. Therefore how much noise pollution can this really create?

The ban is of course complete bollocks, and the club will if necessary hire a live band to play it instead. I would guess that the noise level will be on a par with the amplified system.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Loyal readers with good memories, that have not been addled by age, booze, drugs and lusche living, may recall that back in February I wrote about the plans by my old "chums" from Croydon Council to hire a private security firm to levy fines on those who drop litter:

"I am ungemused to read that Nanny's chums from the council my old hometown (and place of my birth) Croydon (today named as Wanking Capital of London)
is redoubling its efforts to extort money from the hapless local
residents, by employing Xfor a private security firm (made up of ex
squaddies) who will act as "street enforcement officers" anbd impose £80
fines on anyone dropping litter etc.Now here's the catch, Xfor are accountable to no one and receive £45 for every £80 fine imposed.Can you see the incentive for them to whack the residents of Croydon with as many fines as possible?It's known as the "corruption of punishment", whereby the state is
incentivised to levy as many fines as possible in order to increase its
revenue stream.News reaches Inside Croydon of what appears to be yet another epic fail by the leadership at Croydon Council."

As ever with all great plans of mice, men and Nanny something went tits up.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

As ever with Nanny's advice about what we should eat, drink, smoke and generally imbibe, her once stated "safe limits" and "prohibitions" more often than not are revised.

Most often by Nanny herself!

This time it seems that her often contradictory and confusing advice about drinking during pregnancy is yet again being revised.

Loyal readers will be aware that Nanny has sashayed in her pronouncements about "safe limits" between "a little won't hurt you" to zero tolerance.

Regarding zero tolerance, I would point out that many women do not realise that they are pregnant for a few months; and therefore will have happily continued with their drinking and smoking lifestyle anyway, oblivious to any conception having taken place.

As per the BBC according to a study in An International
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG), light drinking during pregnancy does not harm child behavioural or mental development.

However, before ever expectant mother cracks open the Bollinger, in Nanny's view light drinking is classed as consuming up to two units of
alcohol per week.

For good measure John Thorp, from the journal in which the paper was published, still thinks it is best to abstain:

"These findings, that drinking not more than one or two units of
alcohol per week during pregnancy is not linked to developmental
problems in early-mid childhood, are consistent with current UK
Department of Health guidelines.

However, it remains unclear as
to what level of alcohol consumption may have adverse outcomes so this
should not alter current advice and if women are worried about
consumption levels the safest option would be to abstain from drinking
during pregnancy."

I refer Mr Thorp to my point made above, namely that many women are not aware that they are pregnant until a few months into their term.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Loyal readers will not be surprised, but will be depressed, to learn that council staff, health and safety inspectors, the Royal Mail etc are all gagging to use Nanny's “Snoopers’ Charter” to monitor private
emails, telephone records and internet use.

The more "innocent" amongst us had assumed that "only" the police, intelligence agencies and HMRC would be able to use the Communication Data Act.

Apparently not!

The Home Orifice has, according to the Telegraph, confirmed that it is considering all the submissions made
by public bodies to use the powers to monitor what we say.

A Freedom of Information Act request from Big Brother Watch has revealed that 36 “groups” had applied, but it
counted local authorities and NHS trusts once each, making it unclear how
many individual councils or health trusts were involved.

The Home Orifice claim that Parliament would make the final decision
about which bodies would have access.

Monday, April 15, 2013

My thanks to a loyal reader who shared with me a rather bizarre lavatorial experience that he had the other day at East Grinstead railway station:

"Recently I decided to use 'the facilities' at our lovely brand
spanking new railway station building in East Grinstead.

The new
building boasts 2 unisex cubicle toilet rooms, suitably equipped also
for disabled passengers. However, the doors to both were locked and
could only be opened by requesting assistance from a Southern Railways
employee.

So I enquired of the ticket collector at the barrier why this
was so, and he informed me in all earnestness that this was down to 'new health and safety' regulations.

I am not quite sure whose health
or safety this was designed to protect, nor am I aware of any new HSE
directives.

Have you come across anything?"

Has anyone else experienced similar lavatorial health and safety issues?

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Auntie has managed to annoy both the puerile prats who are promoting "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" and those who believe in freedom of expression (even when it is offensive to some) by refusing to play the song in tomorrow's chart show, but instead playing a wee excerpt in the news.

Friday, April 12, 2013

My thanks to a loyal reader who pointed me to a fine example of Nanny becoming over zealous wrt road signage, and then deciding (thanks in part the the actions of a prankster) that her original signage was bollocks.

Nanny's chums from Norwich City Council originally added the word "only" to sign indicating that the road is for only buses between 7:30AM and 9:30AM.

“When
potential enforcement action needs to be taken by local authorities
they have to be sure of their ground as it’s becoming increasingly
common for people to challenge it.

Our initial interpretation of
regulations on this matter was that the sign needed the word ‘only’ to
be legal. However, having carefully reconsidered the regulations, we’re
now confident that the word ‘only’ does not need to be added to take
enforcement action and so we shall remove the ‘only’ along with the
addition which has been made.”

Isn't it funny how Nanny can change her opinions about her own rules and regulations?

No wonder there is such a void of understanding between normal people and the councils htat rule them!

Thursday, April 11, 2013

A wee while ago the BBC reported that Leicestershire police tried "yarn bombing" (placing hundreds of pom-poms and other knitted items on trees) in Bede Park and Great Central Way.

The rationale being to encourage people to use the areas more, and thus reduce crime.

Needless to say many people rushed to condemn the idea as being bonkers.

However, in my humble view, the police may have a point.

There are two ways to make an area feel "safe":

1 Have it visibly patrolled day and night by a large number of policemen, or

2 Ensure that it is used, day and night, by a large number of decent law abiding citizens.

The sad reality of many "no go" areas in the UK is that they have become "no go" because of people's fear of crime. Once people have become afraid of an area, they avoid it thus leaving it free for use by the criminals.

As "easy" as it may be to simply patrol an area day and night with a phalanx of policemen, aside from the cost of diverting scare resources and the feeling that one is living in a police state, this does not make the area fell any safer as it in fact reinforces the image of danger.

Until people over come their fear and use the afflicted areas themselves, en masse, the criminals will always win.

That's a pretty sad state of affairs to be in.

I credit the Leicestershire Police for at least trying something innovative.

Thursday, April 04, 2013

My eye was caught yesterday by an article in the Herald about a particularly daft and risky piece of "driving" undertaken by Dennis Bruce Godden in Australia a few days ago.

The Herald reports that Godden pleaded guilty to masturbating and
reversing a car at the same time, so that he could keep pace with a young
woman who was walking near one of Newcastle’s busiest beaches (Newcastle Australia, not Newcastle UK).

Godden had his right hand on the
steering wheel and his left on his penis as he reversed his car along
Memorial Drive, Bar Beach, in an effort to keep up with the victim.

Police found Godden, of Cecil Avenue, Waratah, near the appropriately named Nobbys Beach about an hour later and arrested him.

Officers noted that his shorts were rolled around the waist that indicated to them that he had hastily pulled them up.

A complete and utter wanker!

I assume there will be some amendments made to Nanny's Highway Code, in order to ensure such dangerous driving does not occur in the UK.

“Both the public and police officers
have expressed concern that this type of case has been taken forward.
However, it is important that the public understand that police officers
are not financially compensated by their own force for injuries
received on duty and, in fact, can lose money through half pay and
reduction in allowances.

Let me be clear – to vilify this female officer is wrong. She took legal advice as to how she could claim
back some of her lost earnings as a result of the injury, and at this
stage no formal proceedings have taken place.

In my view it is actually we [the federation] that should be looking
at our processes and structures in terms of how we provide advice.

She is our member and I feel that our
organisation has failed to prepare her for the wider personal impact
that might arise from such a claim.

The police federation’s structure is being
independently reviewed and no doubt how we continue to provide advice in
the round for our members will be examined as a result of this unusual
case.

While PC Jones may be an easy target as she is
one individual within a media storm, for me it is the police federation
that needs to be mindful of the widespread public and member perception
that has arisen out of this claim, and address that where relevant in
our advice going forward.”

That is all very well, but what did they expect would happen when a police officer sues a member of the public who is not a criminal?

David Abbott, a retired police officer from Hadleigh, is quoted by EADT24:

“I have been retired for eight years now
but during my 30 years in the force, working in places such as Ipswich
and Hadleigh, I was assaulted by people, bitten, scratched and kicked by
wild and domestic animals, and I tripped on a dark railway line.

I fell into an HGV inspection pit in pitch dark,
broke an ankle climbing over high gates while pursuing a suspect, and I
was even shot at with a firearm.

We didn’t even have stab-proof vests in those
days, but everything was in the line of duty and not once did it ever
occur to me that I could claim against anyone.

This should never had been pursued in
the first place as no permanent damage was done (to Pc Jones). In my
opinion, the whole thing is ludicrous. If tripping up a kerb is worst
that you encounter as a police officer, then you are very lucky.”

Tuesday, April 02, 2013

As loyal readers know, the Nanny state has spawned an entire industry dedicated to helping people sue other people/organisations for what we once used to describe as "accidents".

Now, seemingly, nothing is an "accident" but is instead "someone else's fault" out of which we can make a tidy little sum.

Step forward PC Kelly Jones who injured her leg and wrist at the filling station in Thetford, Norfolk, on 25 August last year when she was on duty.

The BBC reports that a letter to the business from solicitor Pattinson Brewer states PC Jones went to the Nunns Bridges garage at 00:20 BST.

It said she went towards a gap in the fencing near a jet wash area in order to access the rear of the premises.

She did not know there was a section of high kerbing and tripped and fell.

PC Jones injured her left leg and right wrist and went to the West Suffolk Hospital. The claim alleges the petrol station was at fault for failing
to ensure PC Jones was "reasonably safe", making no attempt to light
the area or warn her about the step.

"This legal action is not supported by the
Constabulary, our understanding being that the action is funded and
supported by the Police Federation, a position over which the
Constabulary has no control."

This will make people think twice about calling on the police for help.

Professional Networks

Google+ Badge

Latest Comments

Recent Tweets

Subscribe To Nanny Knows Best

"In Germany they came first for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.The they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me,and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemoeller

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible

reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Visit "Nanny's Store" and buy from a stunning range of T-shirts, mugs, cards and other items; all showing the distinctive